We need a new Democratic Party

Austerity has been proven to make depressions worse for the 99%. But both parties demand more austerity, now. Krugman, Stieglitz and the other reality-based economists are persona non grata.

Health care costs are twice those of other countries, crippling our wallets and our health. One party wants little people to do without health care, the other wants to cover most folks but keep prices staggeringly high through taxpayer subsidies.

The President now has sweeping powers to ignore the Constitution. Both parties are cool with that.

The wealthiest Americans continue to be taxed at incredibly low rates, far lower than many in the middle class. Both parties are all for it.

Social Security is fully funded for decades, probably for at least 75 years. Both parties want to cut benefits to keep low taxes on the wealthy.

Bankers dine regularly with the President, whose staff and cabinet are filled with other bankers on loan from Wall Street. They are treated with fawning and obsequious respect by both parties in Congress.

We expect Republicans to do this stuff, but we expect Democrats to be on our side. A few individuals *are* on our side, but precious few.

This will not be fixed by tweaks. We need to rebuild our party from the ground up.

ADDENDUM: No, I have zero interest in starting a third party. This party belongs to us, and we should keep it; it's the trespassers who need to vacate.

I still call myself a Liberal rather than a Progressive, in large part because I'll be damned if I'll let the opposition steal the word "Liberal" from me, just as I'll be damned if they'll steal my party from me. They've done all they can to turn that word into a slur, but fuck 'em - they can't have it, and we'll win the word back. We're already making progress on this.

1. Can't argue with any of that. K&R

15. "incredibly low rates, far lower than many in the middle class" is arguable

That the wealthy are taxed at incredibly low rates, far below the rest of us, isn't true, especially if you look at the total tax burden. You can narrow "the wealthiest" down to a few individuals and find it to be true - some hide assets and income in foreign countries, or (like Romney) have very specific loopholes that keep their rates artificially low.

But in general you could more accurately say that we all pay close to the same rates across the board. The wealthy could easily pay more, and in a progressive tax system they would pay more, as they are the only group able to pay more. But they don't.

64. Here's the background on the source for that graphic:

"Citizens for Tax Justice, founded in 1979, is a 501 (c)(4) public interest research and advocacy organization focusing on federal, state and local tax policies and their impact upon our nation. CTJ's mission is to give ordinary people a greater voice in the development of tax laws. Against the armies of special interest lobbyists for corporations and the wealthy, CTJ fights for:

and so forth. I know the first reaction to discrepant information is to attack the source, rather than research the source, and to dismiss the information, rather than fact-check it or make sure you understand it.

"Total taxes" is the key term. The right tends to look only at federal taxes when they form their talking points, as the federal tax rates are the most progressive and show the poor paying nothing and the wealthiest paying ridiculous amounts in comparison. This is a distortion.

"Total taxes" includes sales tax, which consumes a disproportionate amount of poorer individual's income, as do the fuel and energy taxes, and vehicle registration fees and so forth. When you look at the proportions of a person's income paid in total taxes, those who pay no federal income tax still pay about 20% of their income in taxes.

When you get to the middle classes you add more federal income tax along with property taxes and higher state taxes. When you reach the top of the ladder sales tax and others becomes insignificant, but capital gains and property taxes can take up a higher proportion (depending on how the wealth is arranged). If you still just look at federal tax, some people avoid that cleverly, but on the whole they pay about 30% of income in total taxes.

The figures are just the facts, and the group that put them together is slanted in our direction, if its slanted at all. On the one hand, it disproves the RW slander against the poor - they pay their share. On the other hand, it shows that the wealthiest also pay taxes generally at about the same rate as most people. Individuals (such as Romney) may have their special loopholes and tricks, but the general rate is still there.

What I take away is that the whole thing looks pretty equitable and fair overall. The poor should pay a little less, the rich should pay a little more. And if we had some crisis where we had to drum up another percentage or two, obviously it should come from those who can afford it easily. Closing loopholes and tax breaks on the uber-rich is the obvious best approach.

113. Yep, righties complain about the high "rates" of taxes on corporations too...

... when with what they REALLY pay in *effective tax rates* is often times next to nothing, or in some cases getting money handouts from the U.S. tax payer for all of the loopholes they've paid congress to put in for them. And they LIKE it this way. They can complain about the high rates when only the stupid and the powerless amongst them pay them.

Individual effective real tax rates versus the stated tax rates.

What percent of our tax revenue comes from individuals versus corporations over time...

122. Capitals gains is the central point, and the bulk of the poolside billionaires' income.

It is also a reason some executives are paid less in base pay than in stocks and options, it gives
them more room to characterize the compensation as capital gains which in the past qualified for the 15% tax rate.

31. This assumes the wealthy earn their income through salaries

43. The top one percent have just experienced the loss of the Bush tax cuts for themselves

Prior to the tax cut for the very wealthiest (top 1%) the ones that experienced the LARGEST tax cut were the top 1/10 of the 1%. Their tax rate was some where around 10-12%. Even Romney when he released his tax return showed that he only had to pay a whopping 14 percent.

If we accept that your tax chart is correct a cursory look will tell you very quickly that 18% of a minimum wage job is far more than 30% of lets say Romney's 20 million as an unemployed man. Does that tax rate you quote include sales taxes, State and Local taxes, Social Security and Medicare taxes?

Should Romney's 20 million a year be exempt from Social Security taxes (except for the first 110 thousand)

Why should the minimum wage person have to pay taxes on every dollar he earns while Romney gets a tax break for being exceptionally wealthy?

The wealthy in this country get all the benefits of having the working men and women pay the tab for their maleficences as well. The banking bail out comes to mind. Not ONE of the Bankers went to jail for their crashing the economy but we got the bill to the tune of 13 TRILLION dollars.

No Virginia, the wealthy do not pay more in taxes. The Poor and Middle classes pay the vast majority of taxes. Always have and always will.

I think that "It's A Wonderful Life" said it best: "it's that rabble that does all of the working, the living and dieing, Mr. Potter. Is it too much to ask that they have a couple of rooms, a bath and a roof over their heads?"

For the rich the answer to that question is "YES, it is too much to ask."

79. Yes, you're right. But it does note that certain

80. Your figures are only

for federal income taxes, not FICA, capital gains, state or local taxes, most of which are capped or regressive. Those at the bottom pay much, much more of their real income in taxes. For the sake of argument though, let's assume there is total across the board equality in tax rates, a sort of universal flat tax that takes exactly 10% from everyone and no more. Who is burdened more, the one paying 10% on a $10,000 income of the one paying the same rate on a $10,000,000 income? Your figures also fail to note that a majority of the 1% receive their income primarily from wages and salaries and are not privy to sophisticated tax avoidance and financial schemes yet are still averaged into the only income group without an upper income limit. As incomes increase, approaching that of the 0.1% of taxpayers, actual taxation drops precipitously and mirrors rates paid by the poorest tax payers.

A new working paper on tax reform options from Citizens for Tax Justice has a section describing a category of revenue-raising proposals that has not received much attention: ending tax shelters for investment income. As former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers noted in a recent op-ed: “What’s needed is an element that has largely been absent to date: the numerous exclusions from the definition of adjusted gross income that enable the accumulation of great wealth with the payment of little or no taxes.”

The problem addressed by these proposals is partly related to the problem posed by the special, low rates that apply to capital gains and stock dividends. (Congress certainly needs to eliminate those special rates, so that investment income is taxed just like any other income.)

The breaks and loopholes criticized by Larry Summers and explained in CTJ’s new working paper allow wealthy individuals to delay or completely avoid paying taxes on their capital gains — at any rate. It does not matter what tax rate applies to capital gains so long as the wealthy can use these shelters to avoid paying any tax at all.

There's a few more little problems with adjusted gross income as calculated for the rich on that page.

And CJA is no radical organization. I, for instance, would go much further than they. But in no way does their overall analysis suggest that current tax rates are in any way "fair" for both the rich and the rest of us.

168. Screw the Wealthy..

And Screw anyone who thinks "Their Fair Share' shouldn't be 2-3 times more. They've gotten rich on the sweat of the poor for decades. Since they have been sucking the life out of the economy with all the off shoring, outsourcing and tax dodges, Make THEM pay to rebuild the entire economy till they're mother has to eat cat food.
So tired of this "Job Creator" bullshit. I've worked for rich, self entitled pricks and most would squeeze nickel till the buffalo shits, I've worked for average schmucks like me and seen them go without groceries for a week to make sure I got a paycheck.

7. Agreed.

Publicly funded campaigns are the only way to go, that way EVERY candidate has a level playing field. Get rid of the secret money completely, if you donate to a candidate, you reveal who you are, period.

The very best people for the jobs in Congress--the ones with good ideas, level heads, the ones who know what it's like to scrape by these days--can't afford to run for office. Congress shouldn't be a Millionaire's Club, but it is. Do we really expect millionaires to understand financial difficulties? Apparently not.

159. We need far more change than just how campaigns are paid for. n/t

181. Yep, this too, and to curtail lobbying.

We need to overturn Citizens United. We need an entire overhaul of how elections are structured. We need to wrest power over balloting and the debates from the two corporate parties and put them back in the hands of the people.

You are right that we need reform of "the system," and that includes a lot. Corporate money and influence, in all the many ways they have been insinuated into the system.

President Obama laid out a number of good ideas in his State of the Union address. Unfortunately, almost all of them would require spending money — and given Republican control of the House of Representatives, it’s hard to imagine that happening.

One major proposal, however, wouldn’t involve budget outlays: the president’s call for a rise in the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $9, with subsequent increases in line with inflation. The question we need to ask is: Would this be good policy? And the answer, perhaps surprisingly, is a clear yes....the current level of the minimum wage is very low by any reasonable standard. For about four decades, increases in the minimum wage have consistently fallen behind inflation, so that in real terms the minimum wage is substantially lower than it was in the 1960s. Meanwhile, worker productivity has doubled. Isn’t it time for a raise?

Now, you might argue that even if the current minimum wage seems low, raising it would cost jobs. But there’s evidence on that question — lots and lots of evidence, because the minimum wage is one of the most studied issues in all of economics. U.S. experience, it turns out, offers many “natural experiments” here, in which one state raises its minimum wage while others do not. And while there are dissenters, as there always are, the great preponderance of the evidence from these natural experiments points to little if any negative effect of minimum wage increases on employment.

<...>

So Mr. Obama’s wage proposal is good economics. It’s also good politics: a wage increase is supported by an overwhelming majority of voters, including a strong majority of self-identified Republican women (but not men). Yet G.O.P. leaders in Congress are opposed to any rise. Why? They say that they’re concerned about the people who might lose their jobs, never mind the evidence that this won’t actually happen. But this isn’t credible...today’s Republican leaders clearly feel disdain for low-wage workers. Bear in mind that such workers, even if they work full time, by and large don’t pay income taxes (although they pay plenty in payroll and sales taxes), while they may receive benefits like Medicaid and food stamps. And you know what this makes them, in the eyes of the G.O.P.: “takers,” members of the contemptible 47 percent who, as Mitt Romney said to nods of approval, won’t take responsibility for their own lives.

16. Wait

"As people like Greg Sargent point out time and again, the centrist ideal — deficit reduction via a mix of revenue increases and benefits cuts — is what Obama is already offering; in fact, his proposals have been to the right of Bowles-Simpson."

19. Hey,

"As people like Greg Sargent point out time and again, the centrist ideal — deficit reduction via a mix of revenue increases and benefits cuts — is what Obama is already offering; in fact, his proposals have been to the right of Bowles-Simpson."

...even Krugman is allowed to use rhetoric. Bowles-Simpson was a kitchen-sink proposal that included everything from cutting defense to raising the cap on Social Security.

198. The problem 'centrists' face right now is that one Party is offering actual compromise (DNC)

while the other Party, the Republicans are unwilling to make a deal of any kind. The Third Way centrist rhetoric hinges on 'both Parties are to blame' materials, they need to keep saying 'both Parties' over and over, because they are a bit of each Party, not really Democrats or Republicans, they are the Third Way, and they refuse to blame the Republicans because they ARE the Republicans as much as they are Democrats.
Hard to be in the business of blaming 'both sides' when one side is reasonable and the other devoted to irrational opposition to even their own ideas.
It is time for centrists to admit that they are not just a Third Way, they are a third Party, or just Republicans, because they refuse to blame the Party at fault, they are devoted to the notion that both parties are equally wrong and equally right making the 'center' some paradise of perfection.
Currently 'centrists' take the middle ground between reason and madness, not a tenable place to dwell.

37. There you go again

"raising taxes on the rich did NOT win...Obama gave $1.3 trillion in tax cuts to the richest 5% "

...with your bogus numbers.

Capital Gains Tax Cuts ‘By Far’ The Biggest Contributor To Growth In Income Inequality, Study Findshttp://www.democraticunderground.com/10022407211President Obama actually did something to address the inequality, raising taxes on the top one percent (higher than the Clinton rate with the health care tax included) and increasing capital gains to its highest level since the mid 90s. The total effect is significant.

<...>

Perhaps the best prism through which to see the Democrats’ gains is inequality. In the 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama said that his top priority as president would be to “create bottom-up economic growth” and reduce inequality...In the 2009 stimulus, he insisted on making tax credits “fully refundable,” so that even people who did not make enough to pay much federal tax would benefit. The 2010 health care law overhaul was probably the biggest attack on inequality since it began rising in the 1970s, increasing taxes on businesses and the rich to pay for health insurance largely for the middle class.

The biggest progressive gripe about the legislation is that Mr. Obama extracted less revenue from the affluent than expected — about $600 billion versus $800 billion over the next decade. In perspective, however, this isn’t that big a deal. Put it this way: A reasonable estimate is that gross domestic product over the next 10 years will be around $200 trillion. So if the revenue take had matched expectations, it would still have amounted to only 0.4 percent of G.D.P.; as it turned out, this was reduced to 0.3 percent. Either way, it wouldn’t make much difference in the fights over revenue versus spending still to come.

44. they are not my numbers

And Krugman is a tool, as I have said before. He writes "about $600 billion versus $800 billion over the next decade."

So the bad deal was only $200 billion worse than the original deal. Perhaps Krugman is too much of a moron to know that the ORIGINAL deal heavily favored the rich? http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021880321 (look, it's a link nobody will click)

Or maybe he's just a tool?

I'm going with tool. Let's give the perfesser the benefit of the doubt.

and again, with YOUR bogus argument "That also doesn't take the additional health care tax into account. "

Maybe because, for the dozenth time, the additional health care tax was NOT part of the evil ATRA surrender to the wealthy.

You know, the one that gives $1.3 trillion in tax cuts to the richest 5% and $2.4 trillion in tax cuts to the richest 20%.

45. "And Krugman is a tool"

"So the bad deal was only $200 billion worse than the original deal. Perhaps Krugman is too much of a moron to know that the ORIGINAL deal heavily favored the rich? http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021880321 (look, it's a link nobody will click)"

Like I said, there you go with your bogus numbers again. Refering to Krugman as a "tool" and "moron" doesn't add to your crediblity.

70. Nice try, but some of us are paying attention

1) hfojvt posted some figures
2) you (ProSense) claimed, without proof, that they were hfojvt's "own bogus numbers"
3) hfojvt then proved, via a link, that the numbers who neither his own nor "bogus"
4) flummoxed, you (ProSense) ludicrously responded, "There you go with your bogus numbers again!", as though repeating the same NonSense would somehow make it true on the second time around.

Well, I checked that Citizens for Tax Justice link which hfojvt provided, and their report is persuasive: the fiscal cliff deal which Obama agreed to really did end up as a tax cut for the wealthiest, with the lowest income brackets receiving the least generous part of the deal.

75. Thanks for

"Nice try, but some of us are paying attention

1) hfojvt posted some figures
2) you (ProSense) claimed, without proof, that they were hfojvt's "own bogus numbers"
3) hfojvt then proved, via a link, that the numbers who neither his own nor "bogus"
4) flummoxed, you (ProSense) ludicrously responded, "There you go with your bogus numbers again!", as though repeating the same NonSense would somehow make it true on the second time around. "

...jumping in with a silly argument and lame attempt at name calling. No you haven't been "paying attention."

I've had that debate over and over again. The numbers are bullshit spin.

83. Its one way of looking at the numbers

...but the reason they look that way is specific to the method. If you let all the bush tax cuts expire and go back to the tax rates before them, then impose the current tax rates on those old tax rates - what is the difference? The difference in the article is that not all the taxes on the wealthiest were increased all the way to their former rates. Because the sums at the top are so large, looked at that way it appears Obama just gave the rich a disproportionately large tax break.

Looked at another way, Obama kept the status quo for everybody but the wealthy - who had their taxes raised. I don't have a problem with Citizens for Tax Justice, but in anything on this subject you have to keep your head and read carefully, there's always ways to put things that will make them look unfair one way or another.

96. maybe because the status quo was so evil

Obama kept the "status quo" (meaning the status quo that was created after Bush tax cuts that massively favored the wealthy) for everybody but the wealthy, who got to keep 68% of their massive tax cuts which were set to automatically expire.

What Obama did there massively favored the wealthy over the rest of us - that is my point. And since the Bush tax cuts actually DID expire before both parties could pass another big tax break for the wealthy, then it is, in fact, a big tax break for the wealthy, because it took a status quo where the Bush tax cuts had expired and it passed a new set of permanent tax cuts that heavily favor the wealthy.

So Obama took a bad status quo, and instead of letting it expire and fighting for something better, he made most of it permanent. And the lying jackweasel tries to claim that he gave $1.3 trillion in tax cuts to the top 5% only so the bottm 60% could keep $600 billion in tax cuts. He's fighting for US.

Oh, wait, Obama never claims to care about the bottom 20% or the bottom 60%, only the "middle class, middle class, middle class", by which he means those in the 60-99% bracket. Otherwise known as "the haves".

So the New Democratic Party represents the haves and the Republican Party represents the have-mores.

99. What utter nonsense.

"Obama kept the "status quo" (meaning the status quo that was created after Bush tax cuts that massively favored the wealthy) for everybody but the wealthy, who got to keep 68% of their massive tax cuts which were set to automatically expire."

What you can't seem to come to grips with is that the tax code is progressive. Therefore, if you cut taxes for people earning $250,000 or less, the rich benefit too.

"What Obama did there massively favored the wealthy over the rest of us - that is my point. And since the Bush tax cuts actually DID expire before both parties could pass another big tax break for the wealthy, then it is, in fact, a big tax break for the wealthy, because it took a status quo where the Bush tax cuts had expired and it passed a new set of permanent tax cuts that heavily favor the wealthy."

An even sillier argument. The tax cuts expired for about a day so that means Obama cut taxes on the rich.

Note the table on page 3. A $57 billion tax cut that gives
$0 to the top 1%
1.4% to the top 5% and
27.9% to the bottom 40%

Well, how about that, all tax cuts do NOT have to favor the rich, like defenders of the Bush tax cuts have been saying for decades.

And, of course, creating a 5% tax bracket on the first $5,000 of taxable income would benefit the rich, but NOT disproportionately. That is something Obama chose to do - disproportionately benefit the rich.

And if the standard deduction was doubled, that too, might benefit the rich, some of them maybe do not itemize 1 or 2% of them, but the other 98% would see no benefit from it.

So now that I have taken the trouble to explain that I DO understand tax policy, could you stop repeating the nonsense about how all tax cuts will favor the rich?

105. More nonsense.

"What you can't seem to come to grips with is that the tax code is progressive. Therefore, if you cut taxes for people earning $250,000 or less, the rich benefit too."

maybe you have forgotten the "making work pay credit".

The Making Work Pay credit is not part of the tax code. The fact is that you are putting a silly spin on the tax code, which ensures that if taxes are cut on people earning under $250,000, it applies to everyone up to that amount.

You're going out of your way to argue a silly point to promote a separate initiative.

The Making Work Pay credit was the policy of the very President you're claiming favors the rich. He enacted it as part of the stimulus, and it was in effect for two years.

It's fine to support and advocate for the MWP credit, but that has nothing to do with the debate about the tax cuts.

111. uh huh

and is the standard deduction and a potential 5% tax bracket also not part of the tax code?

In fact, tax code or no tax code, the Making Work Pay credit is a way to "cut taxes for people making $250,000 or less (and why the hell would a sane person want to do that anyway? I mean, wouldn't you have to be an evil bastard like Romney to think that those making $240,000 a year are middle class?) without benefitting the rich.

Thus making THIS

"Therefore, if you cut taxes for people earning $250,000 or less, the rich benefit too.""

palpably false.

You keep inconceivably using the word "nonsense". I do nota think ita means whata you think it does.

114. Beyond silly

In fact, tax code or no tax code, the Making Work Pay credit is a way to "cut taxes for people making $250,000 or less (and why the hell would a sane person want to do that anyway? I mean, wouldn't you have to be an evil bastard like Romney to think that those making $240,000 a year are middle class?) without benefitting the rich.

Thus making THIS

"Therefore, if you cut taxes for people earning $250,000 or less, the rich benefit too.""

palpably false.

You know damn well that across the board tax cuts on people earning $250,000 or less applies to everyone. To argue that the claim is false is part of your absurd spin.

Again, the MWP credit was an initiative of President Obama's stimulus, which means that your entire argument about favoring the wealthy is simply bullshit.

Campaigning on making the tax cuts for those earning $250,000 or less had nothing to do with the MWP.

100. He raised taxes on the rich

...unless you can find some twisted up way of interpreting events that might or might not have happened (not that it matters) that allows for that precious "thanks, Obama!" moment, and then re-cast the tax increase on the rich into a massive gift that screwed everybody and was a big tax break on the wealthy.

CTJ didn't go nearly that far, but I think it says something about our media in general that such impressive mental gymnastics are second nature to most of us.

115. uhm

"During his first campaign, Obama ran on making permanent the tax cuts for those earning $250,000 or less."

Is basically

"During his first campaign, Obama ran on massive tax cuts for the rich."

Which, unfortunately, the facts and the numbers show to be true.

As I said, when I voted for Obama in 2008, I was not endorsing the $250,000 goalpost that he ran on because

1. I was hoping a Democratic Congress would reduce that ridiculously high number (a foolish hope from New Democrats, I know, but hope springs eternal. Even Obama has not killed it.)
2. At that point I was not yet aware of how much that goalpost favored the wealthy until CTJ came out with their report, incomparably showing how much it did, and does.

Just because Obama got elected promising massive tax cuts for the rich, does not suddenly make massive tax cuts for the rich a good idea, a progressive idea.

121. Hey,

"no, I am facing facts"

...face these facts:

Capital Gains Tax Cuts ‘By Far’ The Biggest Contributor To Growth In Income Inequality, Study Findshttp://www.democraticunderground.com/10022407211President Obama actually did something to address the inequality, raising taxes on the top one percent (higher than the Clinton rate with the health care tax included) and increasing capital gains to its highest level since the mid 90s. The total effect is significant.

<...>

Perhaps the best prism through which to see the Democrats’ gains is inequality. In the 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama said that his top priority as president would be to “create bottom-up economic growth” and reduce inequality...In the 2009 stimulus, he insisted on making tax credits “fully refundable,” so that even people who did not make enough to pay much federal tax would benefit. The 2010 health care law overhaul was probably the biggest attack on inequality since it began rising in the 1970s, increasing taxes on businesses and the rich to pay for health insurance largely for the middle class.

The biggest progressive gripe about the legislation is that Mr. Obama extracted less revenue from the affluent than expected — about $600 billion versus $800 billion over the next decade. In perspective, however, this isn’t that big a deal. Put it this way: A reasonable estimate is that gross domestic product over the next 10 years will be around $200 trillion. So if the revenue take had matched expectations, it would still have amounted to only 0.4 percent of G.D.P.; as it turned out, this was reduced to 0.3 percent. Either way, it wouldn’t make much difference in the fights over revenue versus spending still to come.

21. What'sa Matter Manny, GOP Implosion Getting You Down? U Figure The Dems Need One of Their Own Too?

That way, nothing ever gets done.

I laugh at your feeble attempts to try to destroy the Democratic party and Obama "from within". I'll let your results speak for themselves. But I guess whinging on DU makes you feel special, so good on ya! Have fun pal!

239. Now You're Conducting Your Purity Test On Me?

241. I believe it was you who conducted the purity test on the OP. Since you set yourself

up as an arbiter of what makes a Democrat, I wanted to know something about your notion of what that is. I KNOW who the OP is, what his opinion of what a Democrat is but I know nothing about you.

If you don't want people to ask for your expertize on what makes a Democrat, then do not conduct purity tests on members who are well known to this community while you are not.

The old 'purity test' meme. So old, so tiresomely familiar.

Here's an idea you might want to consider. These old phrases such as 'purity test' 'reality based community' etc. etc etc are phrases invented by people who get paid for their efforts, no matter how silly they are. They are then repeated generally by people who cannot come up with their own words to express their thoughts. As such, as soon we see people resort to these old phrases, we yawn.

I want to know what YOUR thoughts are, not what someone on Daily Kos or whatever came up with to replace critical and independent thinking. See, when you use other people's words to answer questions, it creates the impression that you might not have any thoughts of your own. Not saying that is the case, but this is what I have found to be true.

The OP otoh, is excellent at using his own words to express his own thoughts. The old 'purity test' 'concern troll' etc garbage replacement for one's own words, isn't necessary for him.

Since you're new I wanted you to know that these old phrases are not likely to impress anyone here.

24. Such a thing will have to start with a third party, you know.

There are already some of those, but they don't seem to be thriving, even though some of them have been around for a long time. DU probably won't be a good place to begin in starting a third party. This is, after all, Democratic Underground.

Unless you are an extremely charismatic leader with a fairly large existing audience, you'll probably do better by aligning yourself with one of the existing third parties, since they already have organizations and followers. Of course, that means starting fairly low in the hierarchy and building credibility and followers for your particular point of view, but that can be done, if your leadership skills are strong enough.

I'd advise, though, finding such an organization that actually does have leadership. OWS, for example, has had considerable difficulty in gaining ground due to its leaderless makeup. The Green Party might be a reasonable choice for you, if you're serious. Given 40 or 50 years, it might possibly grow to a size that will be noticed politically.

25. Bring in the Green Party

In order to improve the Democratic Party we should get the Green Party to become part of us. If the Green Party became part of us, then their candidates could start running in primaries like the Tea Party does with the Republicans, and we could start getting more members of Congress thinking like true Democrats; it would take time, but it would be better than constantly losing to Republicans because our party would be split with whatever new party would be developed.

The only way a new party is going to start winning elections is if we get a Constitutional amendment to do away with the electoral college and have national elections chosen by the people as a nation rather then by gerrymandered congressional districts. I asked computer savvy DU members once before to start a petition to do away with the electoral college, but no one seemed to grasp the idea. It is the electoral college that makes it near impossible for 3rd party candidates to win, which is why both parties will never start a Constitutional amendment on their own.

254. win-win situation

If the Green Party is that adverse to joining with the Democrats, they condemn themselves to never advancing their agenda in the present political structure, and the country will continue down its corporate path to oblivion. If the Democratic Party is ever to move to the left, it will take strong leadership and organizational skills, something the Green Party could accomplish if it put its resources into the problem instead of running meaningless elections that only serve to make a stand without any efficacy.

Being new to this site, I'm not aware of the discussions on the electoral college, but, in any event, it's time to move past discussions. I sign onto all kinds of petitions, but I've never seen a concerted effort by anyone to start the process for a Constitutional amendment ending the electoral college. Where are all the progressive organizations and their resources when it comes to this travesty of democracy?

256. Change from within

Maybe someone could explain to me why having Green-Party Democrats holding seats in the House and Senate would be bad for implementing parts of their progressive platform. Think how many congressional districts across the country continue to vote for Democratic senators and congress members and how many of those could be Green-Party Democratic candidates by actually winning primaries running as a Democrat. The reality of the situation remains that the political parties have set up state voting laws that strongly favor the 2-party system, and until that changes, every time a Green Party candidate runs, he or she will start out with 2 strikes against them, and if they think about running for president, the electoral college system will definitely keep them out.

27. I think we should focus on 2016.

"Bankers dine regularly with the President, whose staff and cabinet are filled with other bankers on loan from Wall Street. They are treated with fawning and obsequious respect by both parties in Congress. "

I like what Senator Warren is doing, which is highlighting the problems that have plagued the implementation and enforcement of Dodd-Frank. See the exchange beginning at 3:25 mins of the Bernanke clip at the link. First , she went after regulators for not doing their jobs, which has huge implications for Dodd-Frank.

An $83 billion dollars subsidy for the biggest banks runs counter to the notion that these institutions are too big to fail. Invoking Dodd-Frank is fine, but it requires enforcement of its provisions.

Public Citizen, a public interest nonprofit organization representing more than 250,000 members and supporters nationwide, hereby petitions the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Board”) and the Financial Stability Oversight Council (the “Council”) to recognize that the Bank of America Corporation (“Bank of America” or “the bank”) poses a “grave threat” to the stability of the United States financial system and to mitigate that threat, as provided by section 121 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act” or the “Act”). 1 Pursuant to the authority in the Act, the Board and the Council should reform Bank of America into one or more institutions that are smaller, less interconnected, less complex, more manageable and, as a result, less systemically dangerous.

Under section 121 of the Dodd-Frank Act, if the Board determines that a financial institution poses a “grave threat” to U.S. financial stability, then the Board, with approval from the Council, “shall” mitigate that threat.2 The Act offers regulators the flexibility to take a range of actions, including limiting the institution’s mergers and acquisitions, restricting or imposing conditions on its products or activities, or ordering it to divest assets or off-balance sheet items.

To the extent that the Act expanded the scope of financial firms that may be liquidated by the federal government, beyond the existing authorities of the FDIC and SIPC, there needed to be an additional source of funds, independent of the FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund, to be used in case of a non-bank or non-security financial company's liquidation. The Orderly Liquidation Fund is to be an FDIC-managed fund, to be used by the FDIC in the event of a covered financial company's liquidation that is not covered by FDIC or SIPC.

Initially, the Fund is to be capitalized over a period no shorter than five years, but no longer than ten; however, in the event the FDIC must make use of the Fund before it is fully capitalized, the Secretary of the Treasury and the FDIC are permitted to extend the period as determined necessary. The method of capitalization is by collecting risk-based assessment fees on any "eligible financial company" – which is defined as " any bank holding company with total consolidated assets equal to or greater than $50 billion and any nonbank financial company supervised by the Board of Governors." The severity of the assessment fees can be adjusted on an as-needed basis (depending on economic conditions and other similar factors) and the relative size and value of a firm is to play a role in determining the fees to be assessed. The eligibility of a financial company to be subject to the fees is periodically reevaluated; or, in other words, a company that does not qualify for fees in the present, will be subject to the fees in the future if they cross the 50 billion line, or become subject to Federal Reserve scrutiny.

To the extent that a covered financial company has a negative net worth and its liquidation creates an obligation to the FDIC as its liquidator, the FDIC shall charge one or more risk-based assessment such that the obligation will be paid off within 60 months (5 years) of the issuance of the obligation. The assessments will be charged to any bank holding company with consolidated assets greater than $50 billion and any nonbank financial company supervised by the Federal Reserve. Under certain conditions, the assessment may be extended to regulated banks and other financial institutions. Assessments are imposed on a graduated basis, with financial companies having greater assets and risk being assessed at a higher rate.

Just a few days plus a year after approximately 100 supporters of the former Occupy Wall Street (“OWS”) working group, the now-autonomous Occupy the SEC (“OSEC”), peacefully marched on Wall Street carrying signs stating, “We don’t make demands so this is a suggestion: Enforce the Volcker Rule,” we’re now learning via a concise and inspiring post by Naked Capitalism Publisher Yves Smith that “Occupy the SEC, Frustrated With Regulatory Defiance of Volcker Rule Implementation Requirements, Sues Fed, SEC, CFTC, FDIC and Treasury.”

Occupy the SEC (OSEC) has filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York against six federal agencies, over those agencies’ delay in promulgating a Final Rulemaking in connection with the “Volcker Rule” (Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010).

Congress passed the Volcker Rule in July 2010 in order to re-orient deposit-taking banks towards safe, traditional activities (like offering checking accounts and loans to individuals and businesses), and away from the speculative “proprietary” trading that has imperiled deposited funds as well as the global economy at large in recent years. Simply put, the Volcker Rule seeks to limit the ability of banks to gamble with the average person’s checking account, or with public money offered by the Federal Reserve.

Almost three years since the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, these agencies have yet to finalize regulations implementing the Volcker Rule. Section 619(b)(2)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Act set a mandatory deadline for the finalization of the Volcker regulations. That deadline passed over a year. Despite this fact, the federal agencies charged with finalizing the Rule have yet to do so. In fact, senior officials at the agencies have indicated that they do not intend to finalize the Volcker Rule anytime soon.

The longer the agencies delay in finalizing the Rule, the longer that banks can continue to gamble with depositors’ money and virtually interest-free loans from the Federal Reserve’s discount window. The financial crisis of 2008 has taught us that the global economy can no longer tolerate such unrestrained speculative activity. Consequently, OSEC has filed a lawsuit against the agencies, seeking declaratory, injunctive and mandamus relief in the form of a court order compelling them to finalize the Volcker Rule within a timeframe specified by the court…

Bedrock Consumer Protections Once Were Flogged as ‘Exceedingly Dangerous,’ ‘Monstrous Systems’ That Would ‘Cripple’ the Economy

WASHINGTON, D.C. – As the nation approaches the first anniversary of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, opponents are claiming that the new measure is extraordinarily damaging, especially to Main Street. But industry’s alarmist rhetoric bears striking resemblance to the last time it faced sweeping new safeguards: during the New Deal reforms. The parallels between the language used both then and now are detailed in a report released today by Public Citizen and the Cry Wolf Project.

In the decades since the Great Depression, Americans acknowledged the necessity of having safeguards in place to prevent another crash of the financial markets, including the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and laws requiring public companies to accurately disclose their financial affairs. Although these are now seen as bedrock protections when they were first introduced, Wall Street cried foul, the new report, “Industry Repeats Itself: The Financial Reform Fight,” found.

“The business community’s wildly inaccurate forecasts about the New Deal reforms devalue the credibility of the ominous predictions they are making today,” said Taylor Lincoln, research director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division and author of the report. “If history comes close to repeating itself, industry is going to look very silly for its hand-wringing over Dodd-Frank when people look back.”

<...>

In fact, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is designed to prevent another Wall Street crash, which really made it tough on everyone by causing massive job loss and severely hurting corner butchers and bakers, as well as retirees, families with mortgages and others. The Dodd-Frank law increases transparency (particularly in derivatives markets); creates a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to ensure that consumers receive straightforward information about financial products and to police abusive practices; improves corporate governance; increases capital requirements for banks; deters particularly large financial institutions from providing incentives for employees to take undue risks; and gives the government the ability to take failed investment institutions into receivership, similar to the FDIC’s authority regarding commercial banks. Much of it has yet to be implemented.

30. Thomas Jefferson on political parties.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

36. Wise man.

85. TJ had such wisdom!

He really did. And I think he'd be right on the front lines for the idea of ditching the name Democratic Party. We're all here because we find the gang that goes by GOP and/or Republican to be repulsive. As much of a sanctuary as the Democratic party might seem, the topic of this thread is lamenting for the Democratic Party that was. I submit that we're gonna have to ditch that moniker - Democratic Party - to start with a fresh, unsullied slate. Our esteemed president stands under that banner - Slick Willie stands under that banner. While these and those who orchestrate with them all play in harmony, the music they produce is NOT soothing to our ears. Just LOOK at how labor has been ignored, save for when they offer up campaign donations. And John Edwards - love him or hate him - was the last to even speak of the poor, not to mention associate with them. What about the expanded drilling that's surging forward - what about EVERYTHING we do - every MOVE we make - being surveilled and logged somewhere? Democrat has been a handly label to establish that we're not one of "them", or "those". But it doesn't build an honest refuge for the likes of manyh of us here on DU.
How about a NEW name? How about Clean Slate Party. How about Reality Party - Honesty Party - Destiny Party - Sane & Humane Party????? I've still got a few bumper stickers on the rear window of my car. One that's as honest an assesment of me as I might muster? ....... "NOT A REPUBLICAN"

191. My Bad, sorry. I just associate them both with Nixon.

189. it was more than that though

it was the victory of Reagan, a landslide victory that also brought gains in the House and Republican control of the Senate. Reagan won every state but seven - Hawaii, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Georgia, Maryland, West Virginia and DC

Then Mondale got crushed in 1984 - took only Minnesota, and DC. and Dukakis did not fare much better in 1988, taking a mere 11 statres - Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Hawaii, DC, WV, Mass, New York and Rhode Island. Then with the victory of Clinton in 1992, it seemed to show that at least the DLC way wins elections, and Clinton became head of the party for 8 years making it more and more DLC.

Other things happened too - politics got more expensive, GE bought NBC and made the news there far more conservative. With the contract of Diamond Dan Rather, the $6 million man, being in the media became much more lucrative. No longer would journalists like Uncle Walter and Charles Kuralt care about truth and the common people, instead the media would be made up of 1%ers or wanna-be 1%ers, who knew which side their bread was buttered on.

And so on, both unions and manufacturing began a decline as Wal-mart and the Manpower Temp agency became the largest employers in the country. And so on. Chalmers Johnson provides a lot of detail in his book "Sleepwalking through History" but I found it far too depressing to read.

212. Those losses in the 1980s were very educational.

Had Clinton not won, we were heading for a Republican-dominated government. Voters rejected progressive candidates emphatically. Today, I believe the result would be the same, frankly. And there's the dilemma we face.

By the end of the Dukakis campaign, I was thinking, "Did the Dems deliberately throw these elections by running weak candidates?"

Remember, this was the period when the DLC was taking over and eagerly supporting most of what Reagan proposed. This was also the period when Jesse Jackson won the Michigan primary and did well in others, so voters had no intrinsic objections to progressive candidates, just to ones who weren't very exciting.

261. There was a lot of talk about the Democratic Party throwing elections back then.

The tension between the liberals and the establishment party was still a significant factor, and The Party was determined to block any candidate that might not tow the party line.

Mondale came out of the Senate, was a conservative establishment Democrat dedicated to building the "center" of the party, and was known by both parties as not standing any chance at all against reagan, yet this is the guy they nominated.

Dukakis was a good guy that learned not to go up against The Party in the 70s and he never did again. He was a distant second choice and was handed the nomination because nobody wanted to see Jesse Jackson beaten like a rented mule. Had Gary Hart had a brain, I think he would have been the 41st President and we'd have a whole different world today.

229. except that is the wrong lesson

1980, 1984 and 1988 were more about the voters embracing Reagan and Reaganomics than they were about rejecting progressives.

Clinton, however, won with Perot's help and he did it by embracing Reaganomics himself. Clinton ran promising a "middle class tax cut" and attacked Bush for breaking his promise and raising taxes. To some degree THAT move really poisoned the political atmosphere, because Bush Sr. had compromised with Democrats and raised taxes like THEY wanted him to, and then THEY used that compromise against him.

And Bill Clinton's victory then resulted in Democratic loss of the House - giving him an excuse to lurch further to the right.

40. First we need to destroy the Republican party.

The demographics are in our favor. Within another 10 years or so the (R)s will not be able to win national elections. They will still have some regional power, if they don't fall apart, but with an electorate that is ~66% white they have no hope of any real power.

Once they are not a threat the Democrats will split into factions and reshape the party. This is simply the way we are.

We need to hold together for another 8 - 10 years and make sure that once we do reform the party that it is significantly to the left. Doing this prematurely might help the (R)s hold together and that is something that can't be allowed.

I agree that we don't have a liberal/progressive party anymore but I think we need to finish the task at hand before changing objectives.

41. A-FUCKING-MEN

And if there is anything that's even more deeply revolting than listening to President Obama's idea of sacrifice-sharing, it's the blessing it gets from the very same people who would excoriate any Republican who proposed the same deal.

But I truly believe the psyche of this country will just continue to sink until it can't sink any farther, and whoever is still alive then will look back on this era as the good ol' days There are just too many powerful forces working together to ensure that the benefits the aristocracy (including Obama) enjoy at the expense of the peasants will continue to keep piling up until they finish burying the rest of us.

47. We need a new Rethug party, too, don't ya think? The GOP we have now is full of criminals.

The dems are spineless. Many of them anyway. Owned by lobbyists $$$$$. Very sad. Over 300 millionaires in Congress. Do you really think they give a shit about the rest of us? Think again. The only way to get rid of them is to have them die or vote them out of office. Get voting. Run for office if you think you can do better for the 99% who are suffering.

51. We don't need to build a NEW Democratic Party.

We simply have to revive the OLD Democratic Party,
the one that stood up for the Working Class & the Poor instead of Wall Street.

"n our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of the people to free, unimpeded travel.

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being."--- FDR

Please note that FDR specified the above as Basic Human Rights to be protected ans administered by our Government of the People on an equal basis,
and NOT as Commodities to be SOLD to Americans by For Profit Corporations.

At one tome, no so long ago,
voting FOR "The Democrat"
was voting FOR the above Democratic Party Values.
Sadly, this is no longer true.

The above Traditional Democratic Values built the largest, wealthiest, and most Upwardly Mobile Working Class the World has ever seen.

I say we try THAT again.

"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone

204. It hurts my heart

to see the derisive vitriol leveled at those of us who criticize the political process du jour, wherein the corporate megalomaniacs own and control the vast majority of our politicians.

Johnson said "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." I would replace 'scoundrel' with "political party sycophants who refuse to remove their partisan blinders." Does not have the same effect, does it?

I alerted on the person who obliquely called Manny a "Ratfucker." Within seconds a jury voted 2-4 to let it stand. When our political discourse among members of the same party devolves into such puerile name-calling, I am dismayed at this waste of time and energy.

Starting in 1985, dividends would begin an 18-year period of being fully taxed at an individual’s income tax rate (the highest rate varied from 28% to 50% over this period). Then in 2003 the Bush tax cuts came into effect, thus lowering qualified dividend tax rates to 15%. Now that these Bush era tax rates have expired, it has ushered in slight changes to an individual’s dividend tax rates.

For the most part, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (aka The Fiscal Cliff Deal) did not change dividend and capital gains tax rates. The deal only adjusted dividend tax rates for individuals earnings over $400,000 and households earning over $450,000. Now, qualified dividends for investors with incomes over those figures will be taxed at a 20% rate (same goes for capital gains tax rates).

No, high earners are clearly not being taxed at the highest rate in modern history. Also. high "earners" are annexing a much larger share of total national income than at any time since the 1920's.

132. History of top rates.

In 1942 President Roosevelt proposed a top marginal tax rate of 100%. The Republicans cried so they compromised and ended up with a top rate of 94%. That's how presidents negotiate when they are serious. (link)

55. Du rec. Nt

56. America never started

Many could say America never started. For a hundred years America is governed by the “Jekyll Island Club”. Back in 1913 huge wealth conferenced at the luxury resort called Jekyll Island. The clubs membership consisting of many of the world's wealthiest families at the time, most notably the Morgan’s, Rockefeller's, and Vanderbilt’s, and others around the world agreed to what is called the Federal Reserve Bank system in America. From my view this is all sort of a money star gate that connects the secrecy of the American rich with the secrecy of the European Swiss accounts. A huge imbalance in the monetary system catching up to everyone.

My personal view contains no axe to grind towards any of the rich members; however, the time has come where they all know the basic banking system in America is in transition. The Gaussian derivative of the basic loan system is obviously out of step for the next millennium. That notion of “To big to Fail” is about to vanish. Not only the banking but the education, healthcare, pension with the unemployment system also scaling towards a huge change by the Democratic process. It is inevitable that the change will occur though considering there are plenty of people like Romney or any in a list of Forbes the securities business will likely have to go to work someday to really see what it is like to sweat to spend energy.

The basic influence is the media. It is sort of like realizing what the media is saying is not really happening. Even though sometime small morsels of truth appear now and then. Like the Iraq war being a hoax, or water boarding really being torture, and Bin Laden family has been business partners with the Bush and Cheney’s family for decades. But not a peep out of the media to expose this huge war profiteering scheme. This whole nature of counter factual filibustering by the media, deception through no dialog, or lack of talk about fulfilling the Constitutional duties that basic American business is subjected to in the core of the Constitution to land, property, taxes, compensation, obligations, and especially care for its citizens. When a group say they are to big to fail only suggests that they already did fail all America.

61. Why new DEMOCRATIC party, and not just party?

131. Because that would probably be a TOS violation.

It seems like a bit of a rules loophole. See, if you advocate for the destruction and replacement of the Democratic party with a new party also called the Democratic party you're still supporting "Democrats" and you're not advocating for a third party.

69. We Need A Paradigm Shift In The Debate

I saw and heard one of the most impressive people I've seen for awhile, on "Up W/Chris Hayes today. Mattea Kramer, from the National Priorities Project, smartly and succinctly explained that all the politicians who express worry about the deficit are full of you know what. Oh yeah, they want to pinch old people, poor people, children, because we just have to cut they say. But.....they also consistently support a massive blank check to the security state and to defense and wars. They're fine with the wealthy and rich corporations evading paying taxes here by Cayman Island type sheltering....and other things.

When Mr. Orange, Boehner, talks about us having a spending problem it's a joke - but you'll never see a mainstream news type challenge his hypocritical statements.

I went to the National Priorities web site and they lay it all out very well. We've all seen those US debt clocks roll, they have a sister site, Cost Of War, with a running clock about how much that is costing us second by second.

There are a precious few left of center types in congress who get all this but they are pushed aside and marginalized by the Rahm Emmanual wing. The right is in the bag with the rich and the MI complex So here we are. I hope that soon enough the discussion will get real in DC and in statehouses.

157. Republican strategy is to spend fast and furious when they are in power, then

scream like hell about deficits when democrats are in power. So they are able to empower their rich friends with tax cuts and pork barrel projects while depriving the Democrats of funds to implement needed programs, thereby weakening the middle class. All with one simple strategy of spend then scream.

71. Almost all our institutions are a complete wreck. I agree that there has to be some beachhead.

There is no foundation to work from, no place where the battle is not in full frey at the very best.

However, there is a real issue that sanity may not be operative in this environment and when I say "may", I mean almost certainly not. How do you negate to a serious degree the toxic and all pervasive influence of money and the tight circle of connections everything is now controlled by?

Something very powerful has to be in place to provide enough opposite force to break from that gravity. There won't be room for a party to represent the people until there is space created. As is, we'd be pretty much praying for better angels just as we are now. They still have to come from the same circles and be resourced enough to take the field. They still have to get on ballots and play the media in a way to not be turned into a joke. Have to have offices and materials. Sure as hell have to be heard without complete distortion.

The Roosevelt's only had impact because they were there to diffuse a much greater real and present threat of upheaval to the existing ruling order. A "middle way" product of the establishment, in no small part to protect the establishment in response to competition to the paradigm.

Our current spectrum of ideas is too tight to move the direction much, the natural difference splitting never gets you there. That is if there is enough threat in play to force negotiation, which there isn't. No consequences for business as usual and no actual alternative that stands to disrupt power centers.

There is no conduit for chaos, all energy is tied up in a doomed effort to fend off entropy in existing orders to the active exclusion of any others. It ends up an exercise in rearranging the deck chairs and crafting fine solutions to problems one wishes they could put on the front burner but bigger and more devious gremlins have taken over the works and new environments created that solid solutions no longer have the same traction in.

136. That's why we need a movement.

Something that looks like what MLK would have led if he had lived. Instead of Democrat leaders and MSNBC telling us what to think, we should be telling them what to do. They probably aren't going to listen of course. We would really need a very big and physical movement with the potential to disrupt corporate power.

247. Occupy the Democratic Party?

How would that movement be different, from Occupy? Or maybe it is Occupy.

The crushing of Occupy was an eye-opening experience for many. The police state we live in is ruthless when it feels threatened. Power will make no concessions it doesn't have to make. Violent revolution would lead to change but not for the better. Occupy was quite peaceful, save for a few anarchists and some provocateurs. Yet it was forcefully put down. So what to do?

But to the point of the OP, if the goal is to take back the Democratic Party (seems like a great goal to me), maybe this movement should take place within the party, rather than from the outside as Occupy attempted to do. I don't know, just musing. I actually really liked Occupy's approach, but without a political and electoral mechanism it was more of an external critique than a participant in democratic change. Occupy the Democratic Party?

249. At this point I recommend all of the above.

Inside the Democratic Party, outside the Party, politics, civil disobedience, community organizing, labor organizing. People should do whatever they are comfortable with. At this point I think the main thing we need is for more people to be active around the issues they think are important. And in my opinion people should switch off their TVs.

72. No shit.

74. The country needs new government

We toss the term kleptocracy around, but this is indeed what we have for a government these days.
Are they all bad? Clearly no, but the vast majority are - on both sides.
Harry Reid doesn't speak for me anymore than Boehner does.
We're stuck with this, since the power elite is firmly in control of this country.

98. Back then we had strong unions and their members were the majority of

Democrats of that day. It was known as the party of labor back then. We need to get back to those basics. Right now we are infested with those favorable to business interests, not Main Street, but Wall Street interests.

232. Harry Truman,.... is that you?

"I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the Fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."---President Harry Truman

78. What can we do other then go to the streets. I'm already surprised that the people

haven't taken to the streets like they did in the 60s. Republicans are working very hard at taking away anything to do with the new deal. Yet people sit and don't seem to see the forrest for the trees. Wake up take back your country young people. Non violence. Where are the MLK, RFKs, the Johnsons and the different religions that helped the poor. I write emails and call my representatives. They don't do anything we ask. I am old. I am worried about the future for our grandkids. Its going to be bad unless we take back our country for the corporations and corrup politicans.

81. the old one stopped representing our interests some time ago....

86. Fixing by tweaks is a long, difficult process, but it's all we have.

One obvious non-tweak, which some in this thread have taken you to mean, is to start a new party (or to work with the Greens or one of the other minor parties now out there). IMO, that's completely hopeless. The Nader debacle of 2000 showed that, in the short term, minor-party politics accomplishes nothing except to pull votes away from the less objectionable of the major parties. It would take decades before the Greens or any other such effort became significant, at which point the surviving Democratic Party would be pulling votes away from them. It would take yet more decades before the new party became fully competitive with the Republicans. Until then, there would be many, many elections in which a Republican won with a mere plurality of the votes.

That leaves us with the Democratic Party. How do we get it to be a genuinely progressive party? The only path is through a succession of victories in primaries and in the races for party positions. We don't need to win every such race. The target is that, over the long run, we win more than we lose, and thus the party infrastructure and the Democratic officeholders move toward the left.

There's just no other way to get there from here. You aren't going to publish a ringing manifesto on DU that gets millions of Democrats around the country to join in rebuilding the party from the ground up.

88. We do need a new Democratic Party.

If we are to reform the United States in our vision, lead the people in our direction, work our will upon this Earth, then we do need to see sweeping reforms to the Party. We need to make the Democratic Party the most powerful force in the United States of America.

It is time to make a clear stand against all forms of wealth, to nationalize certain industries (banking, agriculture, and food distribution above all others), and to find ways to legislate changes in our society to stave off the worst excesses that have led to inequality and climate change.

We should cast out those that have made their fortunes off the labor of others, and those that have any ties to the capitalist system; and raise up leaders from the 99%. We should strive to put a stake through the heart of the other political parties; leaving only the memories of them in our history books. Those are the changes we need to make as a party.

89. I agree

Organized labor funnels hundreds of millions of dollars into a democratic party that is complicit, if not out-right partaking, in the dismantling of everything they should be striving for. Money better spent backing their own people that stand firmly for their causes.

102. NO. We need a new Republican party, one

that's willing to actually compromise.

You keep saying that "both parties are cool" with outrageous things. No, they are NOT. This is more "DEMS=Repubs" bullshit. Which is what Ralph Nader kept saying - until he APOLOGIZED to Al Gore at a book signing.

202. Now it is the Third Way centrists who maintain that both Parties are equally at fault

We hear it all over the media, the false equation that neither side will compromise when Democrats are willing and Republicans absolutely refuse to do so. This makes it hard on centrists and Third Way types who need to hold ground between the two Parties without actually admitting that they are in fact a Third Party. They keep nattering that Democrats will not compromise, we offer 2 to 1 they say 'they refuse, just like the GOP...'
Hard times for the centrists, rhetorically speaking, as they have to insist both Parties suck in order to obtain more power for their own political group, which like the Tea Party functions as if it was a Party while latching onto the actual Party they need for legitimacy.

104. Then you go build the New Democratic Party.

Stop sitting on your ass and writing long-winded messages that is seen by less than a million people and do something. You know, just bitching about how awful the Democrats are on a message board isn't going to get you anywhere and then you bitch that they're not listening to you. Why aren't they listening to you? Because you're not doing anything. You're no different than the millions of Obama haters who spend every waking moment pounding at their keyboard about how Obama is Muslim and born in Kenya and they just can't comprehend how he won reelection and how he's still in power because, gosh, they've spent the last four years a whinin' away.

It gets old. It really does. You invest all this time in attacking and throwing Obama and Democrats under the bus - but what have you actually done to improve the Democratic Party? Have you run for office ... have you gone and met your congressperson and spoken with him/her about the direction of the country? Or are you content just bitching on DU because, deep down, that's all you're willing to do?

Let's be honest here - how can you expect more from your politicians when you're not doing anything yourself? You get so angry at Obama and yet, what are you doing? It's easy to rant and rave on a message board - it's a whole other thing to actually go out and change the world.

Here's a bit of advice, Manny: Do something else. Your schtick isn't going to change anything. You might get a bunch of pat on the backs here at DU, but that's the extent of it (and really, I think that's all you're looking for ... not really looking to change anything or you wouldn't spend all your time on DU looking for gratification from others). Either you really want to change ... or you really just want to complain. What is it?

112. You're totally right - Talk is easy; walking the walk is not; get off your asses

The current Democratic party looks not much different than the Republican party - not enough public service but plenty of lip service.

Harry Reid was only worried about his own pocketbook when he decided not to change the rules of fillibuster so some work could finally be accomplished. I was curious also why President Obama upped the anty to $400,000 to have the tax cuts expire on. I think most of today's politicians are more worried about their future instead of working seriously on the job they were all elected to do for the majority of Americans

The past 10 years have shown that the Democratic party has changed and there is a definite brain drain when it comes to our local, state and federal representatives. To correct today's problems, we need people that are honest, smart and uncorruptible. And if there are none out there right now, we have to search until we find people that fit that bill.

Drunken Irishman, I would not even bother responding to Manny. I can understand if he was being critical of the Democrat's position on the issue. Instead, he engages in a gross attack on most Democrats AND gives Republicans a huge free pass, because "We expect Republicans to do this stuff."

Really? Also, what about the corporate media where right wing talking point spewing journalists like Bob Woodard are celebrated for their objectivity.

Manny's posts display a repeated blind spot with respect to the Republican party and the corporate media. Worse, it reinforces a false equlivalence that shields the Republican party from being held accountable, because hey, the Democrats also are totally out of touch with the needs of people. Even worse, "we expect Republicans to do this stuff," thus only Democrats are the ones who are at fault.

Have you ever seen a post from Manny that supports Democrats in a fight with Republicans and the right wing. Ever? Manny and posts that attack the President will always get hundreds of recs.

183. "Manny and posts that attack the President will always get hundreds of recs."

See rec count above. I have no doubt that's why these guys keep typing this mindless swill over and over and over and over and over and over again.

But hey, as long as the "maybe we can siphon enough Dems to build our own party" contingent have their fingers poised above the rec button, Manny can keep doing what's he's doing. God, this place is so boring.

110. that's been obvious for years, at least since Clinton changed it

from what it once was, to the corporatist-lite, less than reasonable facsimile of the party of old it often is today.

I've long thought that efforts to rebuild the labor movement/unions will go a long way towards reaching the transformation goal, and it's something any "dem" can start or participate in, as opposed to merely "talking about" it.

116. We need reform

that transcends political, military and religious affiliations. A human reform that empowers everyone to identify corruption and conflict of interests that pervades these institutions.

The common denominator in this corruption is that they have created a world where money trumps life itself, or quality of life for not only Americans but all life on Earth.

I believe that if Americans unified and petitioned the government with a list of priorities, and refused to work or cooperate until these were implemented--that there be a Green Movement or passive resistance, perhaps changes can come about in time to counter the Earth changes that are upon us all.

Corruption in this day and age is just plain evil--it feels as if people have totally lost their empathy for regular folks and responsibility to care for the Earth we all share.

This form of insanity is a trap and we cannot expect those within this system to fix itself. I will agree on one point--that reform must come in the form of great and unmistakeable pressure from outside.

134. That's based on faked projections

144. Do you have a link showing that both the CBO and the SSA is using ~8% UE rate

in their analysis? I don't believe that they are.

If you scroll down to table Table II.C1. on page 8, you can see that they are using an UE rate between 4.5% - 6.5% for their long run projections. Or better yet, look at Table V.B2 on page 108 for their parameters. They do in fact show that the economy recovers.

As for GDP growth, or the intermediate assumptions, the average annual growth in real GDP is 3.0 percent from 2011 to 2021...

The projected average annual growth in real GDP of 3.0 percent for this period is 0.7 percentage point higher than the underlying sustainable trend rate of 2.3 percent. This 0.7 percentage point above-trend component reflects a relatively rapid increase in employment as the economy recovers and the unemployment rate falls from 9 percent in 2011 to its assumed ultimate level of 5.5 percent in 2019. After 2021, the Trustees do not project any economic cycles. (page 102).

227. It's the position of those

"That's an ideological, not a mathematical, position. And one that I would never rally behind. I don't think it has any basis in "progressive" politics whatsoever."

...who don't want anymore of their income going to strengthen Social Security. Progressives actually fighting to do so advocate lifting the cap.

Bernie Sanders Introduces Bill To Lift The Payroll Tax Cap, Ensuring Full Social Security Funding For Nearly 75 Years

By Zaid Jilani

Last week, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was a featured speaker at the United Steel Workers 2011 conference in Las Vegas.

Sanders focused much of his speech on the Social Security system, blasting suggestions by Democrats and Republicans alike that, for example, we should adjust the cost of living adjustment to cut Social Security payments to working class Americans or raise the retirement age. “When was developed, 50 percent of seniors lived in poverty. Today, poverty among seniors is too high, but that number is ten percent. Social Security has done exactly what it was designed to do!” he thundered, defending the program. Watch it:

<...>
Today, Sanders announced that he will introduce legislation that would strengthen Social Security without cutting benefits to any of its beneficiaries. Sanders’ legislation would eliminate the income cap that currently exists in the payroll tax that does not tax income above $106,800:

To keep Social Security strong for another 75 years, Sanders’ legislation would apply the same payroll tax already paid by more than nine out of 10 Americans to those with incomes over $250,000 a year. <...> Under Sanders’ legislation, Social Security benefits would be untouched. The system would be fully funded by making the wealthiest Americans pay the same payroll tax already assessed on those with incomes up to $106,800 a year.

Sanders points out that President Obama himself endorsed this idea on the campaign trail in 2008. “What we need to do is to raise the cap on the payroll tax so that wealthy individuals are paying a little bit more into the system. Right now, somebody like Warren Buffet pays a fraction of 1 percent of his income in payroll tax, whereas the majority…pays payroll tax on 100 percent of their income. I’ve said that was not fair,” said Obama during the campaign.

138. I hear you, and I agree. I feel exactly the same about all the political parties here

The advantage of having a huge crisis like we do is that it makes people show their true colours.
Over here, even the socialist SPa has declined a full blown investigation into Dexia, whose debacle hangs over our country for generations to come (literally, via state guarantee for what became essentially a broke hedge fund).
When these socialists then go along with the prevailing logic of Europe, which now succeeded in removing Greece from the list of first world countries, I no longer care for their lip service.

It's time for some real populism. Time for direct democracy, in my opinion. Italy has Beppe Grillo and the 5 star movement now. Start or join something like that Manny, I'd say on a local scale and turn your anger & understanding into a force for good. Of course, I don't know what you already do, I'm just making a suggestion (and reminding myself).

Of course, the route of putting public pressure on the current administration is also a way of changing things. The difference between Europe's reaction to austerity, with an 800.000 people on the streets in Portugal for the "fuck the troika"-day, and the US and the UK is striking to say the least. When is Occupy going to make a big come back? I mean, it has fundamentally influenced the debate and still could (besides all the good they're doing now in filing lawsuits with OccupyTheSec and helping the affected with OccupySandy).

It IS as someone pointed out a system failure. A new system that is supposed to be better, cannot be built along the same lines or within the same structures. A matter of a problem that can't be solved by the thinking that created it. What I think is lacking is the critical mass in the US and UK who see that system failure and that are somehow willing or pushed into doing something about it.

Or like a banker uncle of mine said (whilst agreeing with most of the above) - we are still too well off.

140. yes, exactly, Manny

142. This is what I have been thinking

People who are not robust Dems that are willing to protect the classic Democratic principles, especially those founded as a result of the Great Depression, and that period known as America's Shame, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and other important works, should leave the party.

Democrats have a legacy of reform over decades to right wrongs perpetrated upon the citizenship of this Country. Why should those of us who openly embrace those principles, and our heroes who helped get us here, as well as the legacies of those who did not live to see the results of their works yet who are also heroes -- why should WE leave. If we did, we would be leaving all of that behind.

We should claim the Democratic label and openly and publicly ask those who are throwing our principles under the bus to form their own party. And they should take the New Dems (Third Way) with them....

147. Less message Board Snark - More Winning Elections

The simple fact is that you can't do it, and your position can't seem to do it either. You snark and snark and snark, but your people can't put together even a few local election victories. As it stands, you have to win elections to actually do anything. That is, anything other than consistently gathering 150 recommendations on DU, which is admirable, I suppose, or at least nice for the ego. For some people.

The sad thing is that I support your positions most of the time. Your strategy sucks, though. Your rhetoric sucks. It is claptrap in the classic sense, garnering a great deal of clapping from people who already agree with you. That's not going to make any difference. Except the 150 or 200 recommendations. If we actually think about that number, it's kind of embarrassing in many, many ways.

148. Thanks, Manny for Proposing this....we know how this goes....

But..at some point in America...the call for THIRD PARTY might just get some traction.

We cannot go ON with this "RED VS. BLUE" THING...

It's Not Productive and it's caused Angst since the Kennedy Assassinations...if one (like us older DU'ers have lived through) that we keep VOTING for PRESIDENTs...who seem to go "off rail" from the PRINCIPLES we voted for them and THEN they try to send out their Operatives to tell us WHY...they had to CAVE to the OPPOSITE of the People WHO VOTED THEM IN...who felt they were working for REAL CHANGE.

I don't know about Third Party...Unless we find a truly Charismatic Candidate. (and one always needs to worry about those "charismatic Candidates") because they can be deceivers just like the Regular Candidates...and the message becomes closer to Reagan.

Whatever...we SURELY NEED SOME CHANGE...this crap has gone on for too long and as long as some of us have been born where we've watched it all for DECADES and the result is one becomes "Jaded"...Cuts Out or becomes Apathetic.

149. This is what happens when the vast majority of the money and power is hoarded by just a few.

They will use that money to corrupt the government and politicians, fearing that money, often succumb to it. Correcting the wealth gap would fix the political environment, but to correct the wealth gap the political environment needs to be corrected, first. We are in a bit of a Catch 22, right now. Hopefully we can fight back against the money with numbers of voters.

150. I doubt voting alone will be enough

I don't think so because what the money does is buy ads on MSNBC to convince liberals we need to build more oil pipelines and cut our own entitlement benefits.

I don't think voting is going to be enough. We need some deeper type of activism beyond just voting if we want to correct the problem you just described. I don't know if that means street protesting, disrupting, or what.

One thing I do think for sure is that we need to start running primary challenges against some of these corporate Dems. But it's going to be hard to win against all that money.

154. K&R. So true--and thanks for saying out loud! n/t

155. I agree! I am so over Obama and most Democrats.

I can not believe that they are selling us out on Social Security and Medicare. The end result will be that the elderly will once again become a burden to their children, further sinking the middle class.

If Obama sells out...he deserves to rot in Hell. He will go down as no better than Hoover: One of our worst presidents.

165. +10! (nt)

195. Sure, not

He's done nothing about the major problem, global warming. If we don't have a planet, nothing else matters. People claim that's because of Congress, but when he has an environmental issue he has 100% control over, he still caves.

I don't personally know anyone, Red or Blue, and I live in probably the bluest state in the Union, who thinks he rates anywhere but poor to mediocre.

172. Yes, the need for serious change is obvious now.

When Democrats and Republicans take turns enacting a vicious corporate agenda, and when very little coming out of either party bears even the slightest resemblance anymore to what the people want and need, it's time to acknowledge that we need something different.

175. Third Party Manny strikes again...

176. I notice 10 hours after this thread started, you just added the following-

ADDENDUM: No, I have zero interest in starting a third party. This party belongs to us, and we should keep it; it's the trespassers who need to vacate.

I still call myself a Liberal rather than a Progressive, in large part because I'll be damned if I'll let the opposition steal the word "Liberal" from me. They've done all they can to turn that word into a slur, but fuck 'em - they can't have it, and we'll win the word back. We're already making progress on this.

it's an interesting small print addendum, which shifts the entire focus of the thread.
10 hours later.
Just interesting.

182. "It's the trespassers who need to vacate."

184. This line of thinking is Bullcrap

If the Democrats start splintering off we will be in danger of being diminished the way the Tea Party has ruined the Republican Party. There is a BIG difference between cutting waste from the budget and just gutting it. I saw Bowles and Simpson on MSNBC and they have revised their original plan, by reducing rising medical costs, closing loopholes used mainly by the wealthy and restructuring military expenditures. They have been able to reduce sending with little hurt to the middle class and lower income people. There are many Government programs that are simple pork, like paying well-off corporate farmers for doing well. In the words of Benjamin Franklin-We must all hang together or we will hang separately.

193. We are all with you, Manny Goldstein.

If Obama wants his presidency to be remembered as the one that sold out the American people for good, we can still save the Democratic ideals that were once those of our party.

Every one of us needs to join our local and state Democratic organizations, become active and support liberal Democrats for office. We still have that choice.

A lot of us on DU know more about what is going on in the world and politics than the newscasters on TV. We didn't study journalism -- how to write. We learned other things from computer science to farming to how to work 9-6 at an ordinary job. We know life as it really is. We can take back our party and our country. We just have to work together.

194. You can't ''unrotten'' the apple, Manny.

And we are way past parties coming to the rescue. The underlying system will corrupt anything ''new'' we replace the old parties with. The ground is poisoned and no good fruit can be grown in it. No putting new wine in the old skins?, and like that??

I knew things changed for good the moment they decided they could kill anyone of us with impunity under the rubric of terrorism/national security. After that one: ''All bets on the Constitution are off.'' You're playing with yourself if you don't understand this.

We can can deal with these ominous facts anyway we wish. We can believe nothing and no one and go searching for the TRUTH ourselves.

Or we can turn on the teevee or click on any MSM website and have our brains filled with the the filtered/fascist versions of reality, and thus relieving ourselves of any responsibility to think and to act. If that's what floats your boat, keeps you sane and the age-old FEARS of lack and debt and disease and old age in-check. So be it. I'm no one's judge.

Free-will, everybody's got it! Unless you give it away.

It's time for a paradigm shift. An entirely new way of looking at reality. We have to let this system die so that a new one can grow from the debris of our mistakes and the arrogance of those who have brought us all to the brink. Which includes all of us for letting them do it. We gave them the power. After that, they stopped asking permission.

This system's formula has run its course. And as with all things in Nature, there is birth and there is death. To try and keep a dying idea alive via life support sleight-of-hand (fiat money/bailouts/permanent debt/war economy) is no way to live. It is the way of a cancer, which in the end unless stopped, always kills its host.

196. Me too...

I remain a Liberal and have always been. We need committed "young" people for this. Our county party in Texas is mostly made up of people over 60 and frankly we are getting tired of the hard work that is needed to motivate and organize.

197. What we need is to get rid of the capitalism -

how does a new party help when all the funds in the country are controlled by the top 400 or so people? Do you think the Walton family (owners of Walmart who control a full 40% of the wealth in the country) are going to suddenly start being "nice" and share?

200. Do you count President Obama among the "trespassers"? (nt)

201. A well organized third progressive/liberal party is the only way

we will have a Democratic party that will truly work for the interests of the average American. The Democratic party of today is owned by Wall Street,the oil companies and other big corporations. We are the Corporate States of Amerika and its gone on too long for us to change the Republicrats..
Like the price of gas..had the Democrats fought for us when the gas swindle started about 11 years ago we would be paying a reasonable price for gas but the speculation of oil and gas was allowed to continue and now all major corporations and banks are in on the speculation action controlling the market for $$$ extremely high profits and we pay the price..The list goes on and on...
So my question to you is how do we keep our party and change it to the party of FDR..we don't we start a new liberal party..Will that happen ..no because successful campaigns are financed eventually by corporate dollars.

207. That's exactly what we need

"A well organized third progressive/liberal party is the only way we will have a Democratic party that will truly work for the interests of the average American. The Democratic party of today is owned by Wall Street,the oil companies and other big corporations. We are the Corporate States of Amerika and its gone on too long for us to change the Republicrats.."

...a third party to destroy the Democratic Party. What could go wrong? I completely disagree with the OP:

ADDENDUM: No, I have zero interest in starting a third party. This party belongs to us, and we should keep it; it's the trespassers who need to vacate.

I still call myself a Liberal rather than a Progressive, in large part because I'll be damned if I'll let the opposition steal the word "Liberal" from me, just as I'll be damned if they'll steal my party from me. They've done all they can to turn that word into a slur, but fuck 'em - they can't have it, and we'll win the word back. We're already making progress on this.

211. I'm an Obama loyalist and I'm proud of that.

Would I be against electing someone farther to the left of the President in 2016.

Absolutely not.

But I will not spend the next four years crying over his every decision and posting articles from people who build entire careers of trying to convince people that if they read their books they will understand everything that is wrong with America.

Issues are far too complicated for the likes of Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Cornel West, and a bunch of third-rate bloggers to solve with scathing words against our President.

226. +1

235. What is an Obama loyalist?

Does it mean that you will never question his policies or decisions and have no use for those that might? I would hope that our loyalties would first be with democratic principles. Which includes open discussion.

And are you saying that issues are "far to complicated for the likes of" mere mortals and should be left to the President? To bastardize someone's quote, "Trust in Obama but steer clear of the rocks."

230. I agree with

the OP. We don't need to start a new Party. I don't see the Republican Party as a partner in Democracy but they become an enemy because they threaten certain Americans' rights. I think Scalia needs to get that message. This country is divided and it was once said a divided nation cannot stand. Something has to give and the something back then was a Civil War. And I believe we are on the right side just like back then.

President Obama and officials of the Democratic Party need to do what people elected him to do. They did not elect them to follow the dictates of an extremist rightwing Party and their constituents. Rights and the pursuit of happiness are more important than submitting to some extreme Party with a gun at your head! The choice should be theirs and not ours. The Debt or Deficit doesnot concern me as much as the Republican Party and the threat to our rights as they have become. I would even go as far as to prosecute their officials for War Crimes, because they threatened the World too. They underestimate people in the Democratic Party. Our stances can harden too, because we are just as adamant about our causes. The Tea Party is not the only group can primary someone. It is not about someone's legacy, it is about the people. And I'm getting tired of people thinking they have gotten big enough thinking they can just dismiss them and do whatever they like in office. That should be a message for Hillary Clinton.

231. @MannyGoldstein

You're arguing against things like tax code and the way that Capitalism is continuing to be bastardized, tell me please what president can wave a magic wand to change these things, especially when congress has final say on taxes & spending ?

The simple fact that here in the U.S. we are all reliant on a for-profit health care industry isn't the blame of a particular party, the fault rests with the core philosophy of greed capital which has been embedded into the fabric of America longer than any of us has been alive, what would you do to change that ?

What's at stake is that one side favors handing private industry the reigns, they prefer having corporations manage most government programs, the other side differs greatly, you making the point that it's democrats on the side of corporations ?

Also, what extra powers have been granted to president Obama ? You must know that republicans explored how to expand George W. Bush's powers, they called it "the unitary executive", their hope was to mute congressional oversight, are you saying that Mr. Obama is being enabled by THIS congress ????

251. Well said, very well said

252. as much as I hate to imitate the GOP

We need to form a party within a party, a mirror to the tea party that has all the benefit of carrying the D, but is organized enough that everybody has to at least listen.

The problem is that until you have a 3rd party that has people at the lower levels, from school boards to congress, it will not be listened to. We need to capture the democratic party back...and since the presidency is the most controlled office, we cannot count on any white house. Does anything think a president Hillary will suddenly shoot left when she gets in?

We need a coffee party, one that sinks into the structure, rather than charges into it, getting washed away like so many waves.

260. Bravo!

262. Among all the rec's

How many of those would vote for the same thing, again, and again, or the same people for that matter? I'm not convinced most on DU even care when it comes down to it, I think for many it's all bout their team and anything but a republican, which our elected Democrat leaders know very well and that's why they feel like they have cover to do whatever they want or nothing at all. The republicans may run that way, that doesn't mean we have to. Obama was a little known name who prior to 2008 few were talking about and he is now in his 2nd term. So what do most of us do now? We start parroting Hillary 2016, there we go, we are tied to these peoples apron string with some psychosis so deep we can't break free, why? Perhaps we are afraid of losing. So afraid, that we will take the safe bet instead of the right bet.